Advanced Materials vs Advanced Functional Materials: Which Journal for Your Paper?

Advanced Materials asks: "Is this a new material or a fundamentally new way to make/understand materials?"

Advanced Functional Materials asks: "Does this material do something useful?"

Your 20-page synthesis of a new perovskite with novel crystal structure might be perfect for Advanced Materials. The same perovskite used as a solar cell component probably goes to Advanced Functional Materials. If you've integrated it into a full device and demonstrated performance metrics, Advanced Functional Materials is the target.

Advanced Materials desk-rejects when:

• The synthesis is incremental variation of published methods

• Characterization is standard (no new insights into material properties)

• The material itself is already known, only application context is new

• Results lack sufficient novelty or scope

Advanced Functional Materials desk-rejects when:

• The functional performance is inferior to published benchmarks with no clear advantage

• The application demonstration is preliminary or incomplete

• The material is not adequately characterized

• The paper doesn't clearly show why this material is better for the stated application

Submit here if you have:

• A genuinely new material composition or crystal structure

• A novel synthesis route with clear advantages (lower cost, less toxic, scalable, etc.)

• New characterization that reveals unexpected material properties

• Fundamental understanding of why a material behaves as it does

• Work that other materials scientists across subfields will care about

The bar is pure materials science novelty. Application is secondary to the advance itself.

Example: "We synthesized a new thiazole-based polymer with record hole mobility through a novel condensation route." That's Advanced Materials territory. The material matters because the property is new or the method is first-of-its-kind.

Submit here if you have:

• A known or standard material applied in a new way

• A material system with demonstrated functional advantage (device metrics, performance data)

• A complete functional story: synthesis, characterization, and proof-of-concept application

• Work showing this material is better than existing options for a specific use case

• Interdisciplinary work bridging materials science and engineering/device applications

The bar is functional proof. The material doesn't need to be new if its application is compelling and well-demonstrated. Comprehensive device characterization with clear performance benchmarking against existing solutions is what AFM editors want to see.

Example: "We applied the known perovskite XYZ as a novel photodetector, achieving response time 10× faster than silicon comparators." That's Advanced Functional Materials. The novelty is the functional combination, not the material itself.

Papers that could go either way usually land at Advanced Functional Materials because:

1. The title and first figure are function-led rather than material-led

1. The central claim depends on device or interface performance

1. The manuscript's strongest comparison is an application benchmark

That said, if you believe your work belongs in Advanced Materials, submit there. Editors at both journals understand the distinction and won't hold it against you if your framing is clear and honest.

If Advanced Materials declines your paper and offers a transfer, use that route only if the manuscript genuinely fits Advanced Functional Materials. Confirm the live transfer terms in Wiley's system rather than assuming that files, dates, or reviews will move in a particular way.

If Advanced Functional Materials rejects you, the usual next step is Small (JIF 11.8, broader nano scope) or another field-specific journal. Don't submit directly to Advanced Materials after an AFM rejection unless the comments specifically suggested your contribution was actually about materials novelty.

Choose Advanced Materials if your primary contribution is a new material, a new synthesis route, or a new way of understanding material behavior. If the material itself is the news and the significance travels across applications, this is the coherent target.

Choose Advanced Functional Materials if you're demonstrating what a material can do in a real application. The emphasis shifts from "is the material new?" to "is the function compelling?" If your strongest evidence is device or interface performance against a credible benchmark, AFM is the more honest target.

Consider Advanced Materials first, then AFM, only if both framings are honest and the first submission does not require exaggerating broad significance. Before any transfer, recheck the live Wiley terms and revise the manuscript framing to match the new audience.

Skip both if the work is narrowly focused on device engineering without materials novelty (IEEE journals), or if the application is biomedical without strong materials characterization (Biomaterials or ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering may fit better).

Both journals charge the same APC and are published by Wiley:

Cost should not factor into your choice. Same publisher, same APC, same institutional agreement coverage. The decision is purely about editorial fit.

If both journals desk-reject, the Wiley ecosystem offers stepping stones:

Wiley may offer a portfolio transfer after an editorial decision. Confirm the live offer's terms, then revise the framing before accepting it; a transfer is useful only when the manuscript genuinely fits the receiving journal.

An Advanced Materials vs AFM submission readiness check can identify whether your materials novelty clears the Advanced Materials bar or is better positioned for AFM before you submit.

Read only the title, abstract, first figure, and conclusion. Mark the noun each surface asks the editor to reward.

This is not a metric comparison. It is a coherence test: the better owner is the journal whose editorial question the evidence already answers.

Advanced Materials offers a broader editorial claim but demands evidence that travels beyond one use case. Advanced Functional Materials permits a more application-centered story but still requires the function, comparator, and operating boundary to be convincing. Choose the journal whose required claim the current figures already support, not the one whose metric is higher.

Remove the intended application from the paper for a moment. If the central contribution still changes how materials researchers design, synthesize, characterize, or understand a class of materials, the broader materials case remains intact. If the contribution loses its meaning without the device, function, or use condition, the functional route is probably the more coherent owner.

Now reverse the test: remove the new material and ask whether the paper still contains a compelling functional-system advance. This exposes manuscripts whose title advertises a general materials concept while the decisive evidence is actually device performance. The best route is the journal whose editorial question is answered by the manuscript as it exists, not by a future experiment or a more ambitious cover letter.